Re: [PATCH 1/9] remote-bzr: trivial cleanups

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2013, 20:52 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1uS23OvsDY+_YOBGMgc9t=FBEV3YvM34M9sLMEF9hnTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87bo92l5el.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But I do not care that much really. The patch is good either way, if
>> you don't like it, you go ahead and fix it, because I won't. I have
>> 174 remote-helper related patches in my queue, and nobody benefits
>> from rambling about a one liner that is obviously correct, not you,
>> not me, not the users, not the developers.
>
> You don't stick to the rules of this project, which have been pointed
> out already:

The rules of the contrib area are different from the ones of the rest of the project.

> Your project is moving too fast to put up with the established
> procedures in this community.

That's one of the reasons it's in the contrib area.

> In fact you are pretty much holding us hostage with a "take it or keep
> it broken while causing more work" attitude:

I'm the maintainer of this code, so it's my call. If Junio has a problem with that, I would gladly take my code somewhere else. I doubt that's in the best interest of anyone.

But if the problem is this particular patch (reaally?), Junio could just drop this particular patch. Are you seriously suggesting that the whole contrib/remote-helpers should be dropped because this patch introduces a one-liner fix without mentioning it in the commit message? Really? I haven't seen anybody complain about *any* of the other patches where I "held the project hostage" and refused to fix the commit message or change the patch.

Other than this instance, show me where exactly did I do that.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> Junio of course might disagree and drop this patch, but then he would
>> need to deal with the fallout of possible conflicts.
>
> You did not respond well to reviews and criticism.  Even the
> constructive fine-let's-do-the-work-for-him kind that Peff offered.

Define "respond well". If your idea to "respond well" is to say "Yes sir!" to every criticism, then no, I didn't. OTOH, if it's to reply and address the issues with objective reasoning and an open mind, I did.

I don't understand this notion that every review criticism is valid and correct. They are not, and it's OK to point that out.. really. If they turn to be valid and correct, the reviewer can surely counter-argue and substantiate his/her claims.

And I don't recall Peff ever doing this "constructive fine-let's-do-the-work-for-him" on any contrib/remote-helpers stuff.

> So why is this in git.git?
>
> Why should we take any more contrib additions from you?

Because it's good for the users.

If you are seriously suggesting to drop contrib/remote-helpers, I suggest that 1) don't do it in the review thread of a trivial patch 2) start a new thread where you point multiple instances where the maintainer of the code (me) failed to respond correctly to criticism (of remote-helpers's code), 3) show how this affects negatively the project, and 4) ask for new maintainers if the job of the current one is not deemed up-to-par, and only if no maintainer steps up, drop the code.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras